Forum Report
4th meeting
18, 19& 20 May, 2001
Conrad
International, Brussels
"Life Sciences & their impact on European
Society"
Introduction
More than 75 scientists attended the EU Hitachi Science &
Technology Forum, May 19-20 2001, where they explored this year's theme of
life sciences and their impact on society. Participants put forward ideas
for advancing the public debate on biotechnology and its linkages to
healthcare issues and the environment.
The annual Forum's key
objectives are to share knowledge and provide a neutral platform for
debate amongst European scientists (alumni) who have participated in
Hitachi Research Visit Programs (long-term internships or joint-research
partnership in Hitachi laboratories or plants in Japan) together with
leading experts from academia and industry, representatives from the
European Commission and from Hitachi.
"It is a timely theme because
biotechnology has become one of the top-priorities of the whole European
research" said Norikiyo Koide, General Manager of Hitachi's Corporate
Office, Europe, in his opening remarks.
Mr Koide welcomed the Forum
Members to the fourth annual Forum and introduced Mark Cantley, Advisor on
Life Sciences at the Directorate General Research of the European
Commission, who set the stage for discussion.
He noted the coincidence
that just 100 years has elapsed between the re-discovery of the work of
Gregor Mendel, the Austrian monk who established the basic
principles of heredity, and the publication in February 2001 of the draft
sequence of the human genome.
Mr Cantley said that the European
Commission's 30-year assessment of trends in the life sciences published
1981-2 is still valid and can be summarised by four "heavy"
words--molecularisation, informatisation, globalisation and
dematerialisation.
Globalisation has been facilitated and accelerated
by a shift towards a knowledge-based economy that reduces the coefficients
connecting GDP and trade values to tonnes of steel or hectares of
agricultural land. These same changes are captured in the less familiar
term "dematerialisation", summed up neatly by Alan Greenspan, Chair of the
US Federal Reserve Board: "While the weight of current economic output is
probably only modestly higher than it was a half century ago, value added,
adjusted for price change, has risen well over threefold."
This is a
very important message in connection with the now fashionable pursuit of
sustainability. "If we can shift value creation--the satisfaction of
economic wants--away from physical output towards the virtual economy, we
can dramatically reduce the impact of our footprints on the natural
environment. Feeding a growing population on the currently cultivated land
area or less is an essential element of saving the forests," he said.
The potential contribution of modern biotechnology to the shift
towards sustainability is great news, however, it has unfortunately not
yet penetrated significantly to environmental NGOs or organic farming
enthusiasts.
"The new knowledge in life sciences and the technology
innovations associated with it, sometimes referred to as biotechnology,
are irreversible, pervasive, subversive and globally available," he said.
"This surge of new knowledge is proving indigestible in some of its
applications, particularly here in Europe."
Life sciences is a
short phrase for a vast, complex reality involving the agrofood chain, the
healthcare system, the multiple sectors handling interactions with the
external environment and the various bio-industries. "Today, the surge of
new knowledge has raised policy issues, new questions, or intensification
of old questions, for many government ministries and their agencies," Mr
Cantley told participants.
Scientists and politicians have an
important role to play in re-building public trust, particularly since the
advent of BSE or the dilatory response of some administrations to the AIDS
epidemic. He called on participants to add some "fresh thinking" to the
field, which they certainly did over the course of the two-day forum.
Leading biotech experts shared their views with participants,
including Dr Simon Barber, from EuropaBio, Brussels, who made a
presentation on agrofood. Dr Brian Warrington, Medicines Research Center,
GlaxoSmithKline, UK and Dr Rob Gossink, Managing Director of Philips
Research, Germany discussed the healthcare field while Dr Klaus Ammann,
Director of the Botanical Garden at the University of Bern, Switzerland,
addressed environmental issues. Dr Bernard Dixon, OBE, a journalist and
author, spoke about Life Sciences, ethics and society.These presentations
laid the groundwork for in-depth discussion and debate during the three
parallel working sessions. Each group reported their findings to the Forum
and advanced the debate among participants. A dominant theme was the
urgent need to inform public opinion about the emerging issues.
| Agrofood - A Difficult
Area Facing Difficult Challenges |
 |
The working group determined that the most critical technical issue is
the influence of genetically modified food on human health. The group had
a wide ranging and interesting discussion, reported chair Dr Roger
Straughan, from the School of Education at the University of Reading, UK.
He identified three subjects as critical to the debate? need, technical
and educational issues.
Rapporteur Philippe Robert, a Technical
Project Manager at Jeumont Industries, France, pointed out that there is a
lack of information about agrofood, a difficult area facing difficult
challenges.
"The needs are focused on profits and a solution to future
production problems," Mr Robert reported. "The first advantage of bio
technology from a corporate perspective is profit achieved by cutting
costs, reducing herbicide use and increasing the robustness of
production." A way to overcome the difficult challenges would be to focus
on the product rather than the contentious technology.
"Most people
say there is no danger, but nobody can tell us there is zero risk. If
there is a risk, the public needs to know what it is," said Mr Robert.
"The implications of modifying genes are serious and as such, limits must
be defined. For example, applications for terrorist activities could be
very dangerous."
Public education is critical because there is so much
"missing knowledge", which could be addressed by better labelling of
products. For example, the public does not know the difference between bio
food and genetically modified food products.
Participants warmly
welcomed Mr Cantley's comment that the European Commission is currently
working on clear definitions for the labelling of bio and genetically
modified foods to better inform consumers about the products on the
market.
| Addressing the
"Misinformation" |
 |
The working group addressed the issue of public education and
acknowledged that this area is too new to expect the schools to be
teaching it. Scientists do not have a vehicle with which to communicate
with public and as a result, companies should do a better job of promoting
the benefits of their products.
"We have tried to promote public
information, but it is difficult to get past the gatekeepers," Mr Cantley
observed. "The biology teachers are the interface between biotechnology
and the millions of children in secondary education. We need to persuade
them that these are extremely important issues."
Endeavours to engage
the educators in discussions about getting biotechnology into school
curricula have so far been met with "hostility" he added.
Dr Straughan
pointed out that instead of trying to educate the public about scientific
facts, the ethical, moral, social and political issues of GM food should
be considered.
To this end, Dr Ammann stressed the need for dialogue:
"Students in high schools and colleges do not need to be taught. We need
to pick up on their concerns and develop a dialogue."
Moderator Dr
David Bennett, Secretary of the Task Group on Public Perceptions of
Biotechnology, European Federation of Biotechnology, agreed that public
education is not a question of communicating to the public, rather it is
getting the public engaged with the issues."Many teachers were trained
years ago and are uncomfortable with new topics," he said. "We have to
figure out how best to provide support and encouragement and how to engage
the students."
A play aimed at 14 to 16 year-olds was a highly
successful exercise in public education. Written by a top playwright, the
production won an award at the prestigious Fringe Festival at the 1999
Edinburgh Festival. Dr Julian Kinderlerer, Assistant Director at the
Sheffield Institute of Biotechnological Law and Ethics at Sheffield
University in the UK, explained that the play was a collaboration with
Greenpeace, NGOs, Friends of the Earth and scientists. After the curtain
closed, the actors remainedin character and were joined by a scientist to
engage the audience in a dialogue to discuss the issues.
Dr Dixon
agreed that "we need more effective public education." The process has
been one-way for too long. There is public interest, demonstrated by the
turnout at public meetings held every evening for a week at an
international conference on genetics.
"The public learned from the
event, but just as importantly, the scientists learned from the public,"
he observed. "It must be a two way process. We have to listen to their
questions and their apprehensions."
Dr Shojiro Asai, Corporate
Executive and former President of Hitachi's R&D Group, pointed out
that the same public fear existed about nuclear energy, and today, it is
still difficult to assess and compare nuclear and fossil energy sources in
terms of their impact on environment.
"As professional, scientists and
engineers, we must be sure to contribute to public knowledge," he said.
| Healthcare Issues -
Defining the Boundaries |
 |
Dr Donald Bruce, Director of the Society Religion and Technology
Project of the Church of Scotland, reminded participants that when
scientists communicate "the facts" they are communicating their version of
"the facts", especially with loaded issues such as genetically modified
foods or cloning.
The working group, chaired by Dr Bruce, debated a
vast range of issues, old and new, with some old issues appearing in new
guises. "Where is the boundary between healthcare and personal
preference?" he asked. "What about the grey area of cosmetic and lifestyle
improvements and the manipulation of genes, what is medical what is not?"
The real issue is how we handle these questions as a society, "given that
we do not have a single consensus set of values."
Rapporteur Yann de
Linclays, a Financial Analyst with General Electric Medical Systems
Europe, Paris, said the group identified two parameters--what society and
people can accept from life sciences and what life sciences knows.
The
difference between healthcare versus personal choice is a matter of
understanding the rationale behind the various points of view. "For
scientists, rationality is driven by experimentation, but for many people
it is value driven."
An important issue in this debate is who
represents the public--politicians, pressure groups or consumer advocates.
The issue of personal freedom versus compulsory vaccines, for example,
raises similar questions. At the same time, genetics is a very recent
science with experimentation being carried out over too short a period of
time to understand the effect on human lifecycle. DNA changes could have
unpredictable consequences. In addition, research increases the public's
expectation regarding healing and alleviating human suffering. "Do we have
a real mastery over what we do?" Mr de Linclays said.
In terms of
funding healthcare research, important choices must be made "if we are to
have the best healthcare system possible." However, particularly in the
area of genetic therapy, the difference between sickness and personal
preferences could lead to discrimination between rich and poor or between
the insured and the uninsured.
| AData Protection - A
Contentious Issue |
 |
 |
Protection of personal data is an issue rising to the top of the public
policy agenda and sure to become even more critical in the healthcare
field with the rapid advances being made in genetic engineering. The
working group found that a major issue is the potential misuse of
information.
Mr Cantley pointed out that the EU's Data Protection
Directive has strict regulations for the shuttling of personal data across
borders. In fact, data cannot travel from the EU to a third country unless
its level of legal protection is as stringent. At the same time, data
cannot be collected for one purpose and used for another.
"This issue
is particularly important with regards to our relationship with the US,"
he added. "There are profound cultural differences between us."
The
pharmaceutical industry is a case in point. In the US a patient admitted
to hospital for an incontinence problem could find a bundle of sample
diapers on the doorstep upon arrival back home.
"It is difficult for
pharmaceutical companies to find practices that fit in with European Union
parameters," Mr Cantley observed.
The exchange of data, information
and research using the Internet means there is a large quantity of
unprotected information on the world wide web. Participants debated the
use of smart cards for healthcare and discussed possible abuses.
Dr
Asai pointed out that information stored on smart cards can be used for
many purposes and that care should be taken that personal gene information
does not become publicly available.The data available from smart cards is
not "hard data" Dr Bruce commented. At the same time, medicine is becoming
more personalised and that the "commodified" version of healthcare is
being lost.
Ralf Raue, Department Head at Philips Research
Laboratories, Germany, agreed that the patient-doctor relationship is
changing as we move towards a more patient-centred system of healthcare.
Dr Ammann reminded participants that "no electronic system is
foolproof and safe", whether it is being used for private phone calls or
DNA information. However, DNA data may be soft today, but tomorrow they
will be hard. Already, an insurance company in Zurich is demanding clients
open up their DNA data upon signing a contract. "This is the real issue of
the future," he said.
| Informed Consent - The
Way Forward |
 |
Forum participants agreed that informed consent is the way forward and
that anonymity would eliminate any margin for abuse whilst providing
scientists with the valuable information they need to fight disease.
There is no guarantee against abuse of privacy and as a result,
privacy is "impossible to keep," observed Michael Himmelhaus, a Scientist
at the University of Heildeberg, Germany.
Dr Kinderlerer recounted the
story of a hospital in the UK that had been storing and using body parts
from dead children without parental permission. The public furore was not
over the principle of using tissue, but that the hospital did not seek
informed consent.
Legislators are turning their attention towards this
issue. For example, the British Parliament recently passed an Act that
forbids the transfer of information about cancer patients without their
permission.
Patients have the right to determine what information
remains private but in certain cases, anonymous data should be disclosed
to global databases to aid doctors and scientists in their research.
Without this information, it is difficult to know how medical products
behave in practice.
These "big brother" fears need to be analysed,
commented Fabric Axisa, a Microelectronics Design Engineer with EMS,
France. People are not afraid to give out personal information on the web.
Perhaps it is up to the media to provide the public with information about
contentious issues such as genetic modification.
Dr Dixon pointed out
that 90 per cent of all journalism is based on stories that sell. There
are not enough feature articles weighing the arguments. Witness the
misreporting for two weeks about foot-and-mouth disease in the UK.
| Biotechnology and the
Environment - Balancing Conflicting Needs |
 |
The impact of biotechnology on the environment is at once risky and
positive with today's rising population growth sure to create conflicting
needs. This is particularly important for emerging economies as
populations grapple with the critical balance between protecting the
environment and the need for pure water, power and food.
Rapporteur Dr
Volker Braun, an R&D Engineer from Alcatel Research & Innovation,
Germany, outlined the issues debated by the working group:
- Agrofood with its accompanying environment changes caused by
transgenic plants and gene-spread as well as gene effects.
- Application of biotechnology in process engineering, for example,
which helps treat toxic materials from processing that are released into
the environment as well as waste and sewage
The issues society must balance are population growth, conflicting
needs, politics (for example the relationship between the US and China)
and biodiversity, with its stabilising effect on eco-systems.
The
driving forces of change include the financial aspects (public vs. private
funding), the reduction of farming activity in industrialised countries
(involving just one to 10 per cent of the population), consumer habits
(meat consumption and environmentally friendly products) and ensuring a
guaranteed food supply.
The working group discussed the various means
of ensuring competitiveness of sustainable products on a global scale
including taxation, fines, incentives and subsidies. A risk-benefit
analysis is required but it is not normally applied to conventional
products.
| Holding the World in
Trust |
 |
The working group debated the ethics of environmental protection,
starting with the basic question of whether or not we should protect the
environment. A recent MIT study says "no" in light of long-term versus
short-term considerations.
It also discussed international rules and
whether Europeans have a global responsibility. For example, consider the
Kyoto Protocol - do we have a right to mix in the political issues of
foreign countries?
"Our rejection of the technology in Europe has an
impact on those who really need its benefits," Dr Braun told participants.
Life sciences encompass much more than genetically modified life, Dr
Kinderlerer reminded participants. There is a presumption that we actually
hold the world in trust for our children and that we should hand it over
to them in a state we would have liked to receive it in. Others say we
need only to leave the world in a "reasonable" state. What is reasonable?
Conservation has two meanings ? to maintain the status quo or to try
and modify the environment to make it better.
"The question is, what
are we trying to achieve?" he asked. "The main issue in terms of this new
technology--or any technology--is to produce enough food."
Dr Raue
agreed that to reject or accept a technology out of hand is "unacceptable"
and said the way forward is to give the integration of technology and
nature time to adjust. A story from the American Indians is a good
illustration of this dynamic. When the Indians learned about plans to run
electrical wires under the earth, they asked: "Where will the birds sit?"
Biotechnology contributes greatly to "sustainability", a very big word
these days, commented Mr Cantley. It is time to switch from sweeping
global realities to more specific issues. For example, the massive
engineering projects in China are designed to meet the demands of a
burgeoning population in need of agriculture and water.
The need to
translate the generalities about holding the world in trust into political
and policy issues is difficult to communicate to politicians, he added.
Dr Kinderlerer said the working group discussed whether man is central
to the way in which we view the environment or whether we are just part of
the environment. This is an important issue. For example, the population
of Brazil is growing rapidly and the country does not produce enough food.
They have two choices: either grow more efficiently on the same land area
or cut down the rainforest for agricultural purposes.
In the west we
would tell them we need the rainforest so they should cut down on
population growth. If you ask Greenpeace the same questions, it would say
"No" to cutting down the rainforest and "No" to genetically modified
food. Therein lies the dilemma.
To be guardians of the earth involves
a mix of intervention and conservation, Dr Bruce observed. Some people
presume the environment is a free resource while environmentalists are
calling for a different way of looking at things.
"We can be called
trustees, stewards or companions but in some areas we have to reverse our
interventions--global warming is one. The idea of not bothering would
deeply worry me," he said.
Conclusion
Participants generally agreed that there is a considerable amount of
"misinformation" about biotechnology and that consumers must participate
in broad discussions about its ethical, moral, social and political
dimensions. The potential contribution of biotechnology to today's shift
to "sustainability" must be made clear to the public.
To this end,
scientists must develop a better understanding of the public's concerns
and build bridges by engaging them in a constructive dialogue. Forum
participants outlined several areas and issues for future consideration in
Europe's public policy debate including:
- Overcome the difficult challenges facing agrofood by focusing on the
product rather than the contentious technology.
- Misconceptions about agrofoods could be addressed by better
labelling of products.
- It is critical to get life sciences into school curricula.
- There needs to be a public debate about the difference between
healthcare and personal choice and what this means in terms of
discrimination between rich and poor.
- Protection of personal data is an upcoming issue sure to dominate
the policy agenda in the near future, particularly with the rapid
advances being made in genetic engineering. Is informed consent is the
way forward?
- Anonymity would eliminate potential abuse of personal data while
providing scientists with the valuable information they need to fight
disease.
- Society must come to a consensus of how to best balance the
conflicting needs of environmental protection with the growing need for
pure water, power and food.
- Could competitiveness of sustainable products on a global scale be
achieved with measures such as taxation, fines, incentives and
subsidies?
- What are our responsibilities to the environment and future
generations?
|
Closing Remarks
Mr. Akio Maema, General
Manager-Business Support
Global Business Development Division,
Hitachi, Ltd. |
 |
